Filibuster

[heptadecagram]

So, the Democrats have lost.

I first had that thought at some point during this past weekend. It's been sort of building since then, cohering and gelling until I can finally get most of these thoughts down onto paper.

The Democrats lost this fight when the fight stopped being "these judges are crazy" and started being "keep our filibuster". This is a very strong case of the Republicans carefully framing the debate in such a way that the Democrats are kept on the defensive. And the linguistic armaments of the Republicans have been very strong in this fight.

Unprecedented
Obstructionist
A fair up-or-down vote

As Alfred, Lord Tennyson once said, A lie which is half a truth is ever the blackest of lies, for a lie which is all of a lie may be met and fought with outright, but a lie which is part a truth is a harder matter to fight. And that's exactly what the Republican media machine has done. No position of the Democrat party's fight can be summed up easily except "these judges are crazy", and yet most of the news coverage, talking points, and debate centers around the filibuster. And the talking-point-ability of these positions is important for public opinion. Like Kerry, the Democrats have fallen slightly prey to the fact that their positions, while correct, are difficult to express simply. The Democrats do not have think-tanks that are waging the war on language necessary to give them good sound bites.

I am certain that there are people out there that think that it takes 60 Senators to approve a judge nominee. That's false. It only takes 51, a bare majority. The 60 number is how many Senators it takes to stop the other 40 from delaying the vote to the point that there is no vote. Personally, I'd be happy with such a rules change: No filibuster on judicial nominees, and judicial nominees take a 2/3 majority.

Some people out there are scratching their heads in bewilderment at the Republicans' actions. Why is it so important to them to force a few judges through? They're not even Supreme Court nominees!

Ah, but the Supreme Court is key. The Supreme Court could be looking at quite a few vacancies very soon (Rehnquist had to be wheeled in to session on Monday), and being able to push Supreme Court nominees through by simple majority means a lot of power to the Republican party. Sure, it means that they might get bitten by this in 10 or 20 years, but there is a major debate point right now that is of strategic import: Abortion.

The public's support of abortion has been falling. Currently, it is hovering around 55% in full favor, and 29% for emergency-only. Realize that this does not mean "84% support abortion", this means "43% want to restrict or ban abortion". That's a scarily close margin.

The Republicans do want to overturn Roe v. Wade. After a successful filling of the Supreme Court, it's a simple matter of a law limiting abortion to only in cases where the mother's life is threatened, or rape. I could go the route of the Slippery Slope and suggest that this is just a stepping-stone to outlawing abortion altogether, but one can easily see the danger and destruction in simply limiting abortions thusly. There's not such a restriction on any life-saving procedure. No other medical procedure requires its recipient to have to hire a lawyer or see a judge to have it.

But, public support for abortion is in decline. If a piece of legislation can be pushed through now, at the low spot, there would be less opposition to it, and the Supreme Court would be in a position to support it. And then the law would have endorsement from all three branches of government, just like the War on Drugs.

But, the Democrats, and by extension we the people, have lost this debate. It's no longer about Roe v. Wade, and it's no longer about crazy judges. It's about a point of procedure that most Americans do find obstructionist and underhanded, and a political tool of power. The filibuster is a tool of power, even if it is a tool of the minority, and it's a tool of politicians. People don't like politicians.

The way this debate could have been phrased to win for the Democrats would have been to focus on Republicans ramming activist, partisan judges through the Senate, and how the Republicans are underhandedly changing the rules to make a judge pass with only 50 votes instead of 60.

And I admit, the Democrats have done an excellent job, better than anything else they've done against this administration, in getting that message out. But it's still being outshouted, and while I expect that there will come a time when we can compete on level ground, I am saddened that this does not seem to be our first victory.

Comments

[speaker2animals.livejournal.com]

The Democrats do not have think-tanks that are waging the war on language necessary to give them good sound bites.

The flippant answer is... "that's because the Democrats don't think." (sorry man, an opening that you could drive a truck through)

The more accurate answer is... "that's because the Democrats have the sympathies of a vast media-machine of their own that perpetually saturates the public with hate, fear, innuendo, demagoguery and yes, tailored sound bites... all to support their own causes."

By no means do the Republicans wield a monopoly on media spin or word-craft. The term "liberal media" was not a phrase dreamed up by a devious conservative so as to cover up their own shadowy conspiracies. Neither was the term "activist judges." Indeed your glowing descriptions of the nation's Democrats, and comparatively demonic characterizations of Republicans, seem dishonest in themselves.

You also claim that the voice of the Democrats is being drowned out by Republican media sources, yet in my experience the liberal media has been far more vociferous and deceitful by comparison to any of the conservative outlets. I have no trouble hearing the very shrill message of the Democratic party and their liberal surrogates. Coming through loud and clear, yet despite the excellent reception, the tide of public opinion has turned against the left.

I won't ask you to change the channel, but I suspect that changing the *message* and not the volume will benefit the Democrats more than anything else.

[figmentatious.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'm curious where is this vast liberal-media machine? You are, of course, correct that it is not a conservative monopoly on the media, but I don't think that is what was being claimed. There is a difference between saying that a vast majority of the media is in conservative control and saying that all of it is. I'm curious as to how many liberal "talking heads" you can name. I'm betting we can name a lot more conservative ones.

And I certainly won't claim that the liberals are always completely honest and the conservatives always lie. I would bet that I could name 2 outright lies of the conservatives for every one you could name from the liberals. But when it really comes down to it, that's not important either. It turns out that most people aren't really all that concerned about the literal truth. They don't really mind if you lie, as long as they don't object to your reasons for doing so.

I think you are right that changing the message is important. We need to spend less time talking about why what the Republicans are doing doesn't work and talk more about our values and why they do work.

A large part of the reason that the left doesn't have the large coordinated think tanks that the left does is that liberals tend to be more interested in working on programs that directly help individuals. We tend to want to know that the things that we donate time and money to are helping children get out of poverty, easing the suffering of people with AIDS, providing education and opportunities, and other such liberal causes. We like to directly nurture people and support them and help them grow. This is often at the expense of building the knowledge and infrastructure to communicate our ideals to people.

[speaker2animals.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'm curious where is this vast liberal-media machine? You are, of course, correct that it is not a conservative monopoly on the media, but I don't think that is what was being claimed. There is a difference between saying that a vast majority of the media is in conservative control and saying that all of it is. I'm curious as to how many liberal "talking heads" you can name. I'm betting we can name a lot more conservative ones.


Although their numbers are legion, I can name but a few...

Liberals like Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Mark Shields, Daniel Shore, Robert Reich... oh wait a minute, Dan Blather is out of a job thanks to his promotion of forged documents on national television. How many CONSERVATIVE news anchors turned a blind eye to a bitter liberal's forged evidence for the very specific purpose of defeating the President in a political election?

And Bill Moyers is gone too, so I guess my short list is getting shorter. Still, it appears to me that the liberal left are far more institutionalized, insinuated and toxic than their conservative counterparts. Sure there's Fox News, Bill O'Reilly and the Washington Times... but for each of these there is The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, NPR radio, PBS television, CBS (home of Dan Rather), NBC, CNN and a host of others. Yes, there's the conservative AM radio pundits with their own talk shows... but they're relegated to the gulag of AM radio.

Much of Hollywood and the entertainment industry seems to be openly hostile towards the Republicans, slamming the administration at every gala event. Fahrenheit 9/11, that famous propaganda piece, stands as a monument to liberal hatchet jobs. Academia is a veritable breeding ground of liberal bias ... and guess where a lot of journalists and media types come from.

Then there's institutions like the AARP (since when did advocacy for seniors turn into endorsement of a political party?), the ACLU (notoriously liberal), People For The American Way (well ok that *is* a political group), Amnesty International, the United Nations and a host of other organizations.

But when it really comes down to it, that's not important either. It turns out that most people aren't really all that concerned about the literal truth. They don't really mind if you lie, as long as they don't object to your reasons for doing so.

Well yes, I suspect a *lot* of liberals fall into this category... "any lie is acceptable, just as long as it screws over George Bush." Hatred and dishonesty are a VERY bad combination.

A large part of the reason that the left doesn't have the large coordinated think tanks that the left does is that liberals tend to be more interested in working on programs that directly help individuals. We tend to want to know that the things that we donate time and money to are helping children get out of poverty, easing the suffering of people with AIDS, providing education and opportunities, and other such liberal causes. We like to directly nurture people and support them and help them grow. This is often at the expense of building the knowledge and infrastructure to communicate our ideals to people.

This is ironic because liberals are often fingered as the architects of big, expensive "one shoe fits all" government social programs. Even Social Security, the past century's liberal success story, is doomed to failure because it is a pyramid scheme by design, and denies an inescapable law of both physics and economics... "there is no free lunch."

Conservatives, on the other hand, often get slammed for not backing such social programs. "Not enough compassion for the poor" it is claimed. Many conservatives believe, however, that "charity begins at home" and that local matters should be left to personal initiative, not to government programs. Conservatives also devote their time and energy to what works and would rather teach someone how to fish, than just give them baskets full of fish. Hand-outs, as government policy, provide only temporary respite ... and then the bill comes.

????

[figmentatious.livejournal.com]

Are you reading the same news I am? How did we lose? Yes, compromising on those judges was annoying, but I think that was a reasonable cost to protect the ability to have some control in the Supreme Court appointments. And the reason we were able to get that compromise is that we were able to re-frame the debate and get enough people to believe that ending the filibuster was a bad idea that some of the more sensible Republicans decided to defect. This was a victory, not a defeat.

Re: ????

[heptadecagram.livejournal.com]

If you'll note my timestamp, I posted this about two hours before the deal was announced. But I think that there are three likely outcomes at this point:

1. The electorate sees the Democrats as caving in, and thus only political hacks rather than people with any sort of spine. This comes back at election time, and could potentially hit the far lefties (although unlikely, as they're finally becoming pragmatic).
2. The centrists actually start moving toward forming their own socially progressive, fiscally conservative party (ha ha), or start questioning the far-right elements of the Republican party itself, hopefully ending in some sort of restructuring. Highly unlikely, given that the far-right elements seem to be the ones generating the votes, and therefore power, for the Republican party.
3. Nothing really changes; the electorate forgets about everything.

My point is that our re-framing of the debate is problematical. It's one thing to state "We are preventing abusers of power from having power over you", which is what the debate should have been about. It became "We are preserving our own power". One of these memes would sell extremely well to the electorate, and the other does not. I'd say we lost the war of minds for this one weeks ago.

And the worst part is that we gained nothing from this compromise. The original reason of blocking extremely partisan, unfriendly judges? You know, like Owen or Brown? Those are the exact judges that are being voted on. Even better, the Democrats are now potentially hamstrung by the "extraordinary circumstances" for filibustering judge nominees. I'm not exactly sure how much more extraordinary than the currently worst judge in Texas, or the judge that makes "Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall". We destroyed our power in order to protect it.

Had the rules change actually come to a vote, it could have been outvoted, meaning victory for Democrats, and the power to have some control over judicial nominees. Or, it could have passed, meaning a major propoganda victory. As it was, the Democrats got neither.

Re: ????

[speaker2animals.livejournal.com]

Yeah the media post-mortem was pretty depressing...

1. The electorate sees the Democrats as caving in, and thus only political hacks rather than people with any sort of spine. This comes back at election time, and could potentially hit the far lefties (although unlikely, as they're finally becoming pragmatic).

Many of the comments I've seen on LJ and in the media boil down to "the cowards caved and they are so toast in the next election." This is eerily reminiscent of the 2004 election when John Edwards promised not to quit until "every vote was counted"... and then they pitched in the towel before all of the votes in Ohio had been counted. Many on the left were outraged because they *did* consider the remaining votes to be statistically significant.

3. Nothing really changes; the electorate forgets about everything.

Likely we'll all just dutifully line up in nice neat blue and red rows and begin the volleys all over again in 2008. This is why the Republicans seem determined to put their agenda into motion as quickly as possible, before a significant challenge can be mounted in 2008. First priority... judicial nominees since this is the one thing the Democrats can't roll back. Given that the Democrats take back the White House and/or the Congress in 2008, at least the judiciary will be set right (so to speak).

My point is that our re-framing of the debate is problematical. It's one thing to state "We are preventing abusers of power from having power over you", which is what the debate should have been about. It became "We are preserving our own power". One of these memes would sell extremely well to the electorate, and the other does not. I'd say we lost the war of minds for this one weeks ago.

One of these memes might sell very well if championed by a coalition of moderates led by Joe Lieberman.

My take is that the Democrats are utterly desperate to regain the White House and Congress, so desperate that they'll do *anything* to further that goal. Decades upon decades of liberal political dominance are at stake and all that is now slipping away. The tide of public opinion is turning, in part because the public knows all too well the smell of deception when they hear it. Democratic supporters may also be getting the hint, except that supporting the Republicans is even *more* distasteful.

A friend of mine once remarked that he saw a political role-reversal taking place: the Democrats, once the "thinking" party, are now desperately grasping onto the last straws of their powerbase and institutions. The Republicans have become the "thinking" party with legitimate think tanks and constructive NEW solutions for dealing with the world's problems. Like the dinosaurs, the Democrats have failed to adapt, relying on the political ploys and predictable wordcraft they used back in the eras of civil rights and class warfare... and they're STILL fighting those battles.

And the worst part is that we gained nothing from this compromise. The original reason of blocking extremely partisan, unfriendly judges? You know, like Owen or Brown? Those are the exact judges that are being voted on. Even better, the Democrats are now potentially hamstrung by the "extraordinary circumstances" for filibustering judge nominees. I'm not exactly sure how much more extraordinary than the currently worst judge in Texas, or the judge that makes "Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall". We destroyed our power in order to protect it.

Clearly, the Democrats' motivations have little to do with opposing "extremist nominees"... it's all about retaining political power, and like The Sith, the Democrats fear the loss of power most of all. Their conviction and commitment to keeping those "abhorrent extremists" out of the judiciary are adequate testament to this. I feel sorry for supporters like vvalkyri who do have a sense of justice and conviction, but are being treated like pawns in a war against fabricated evils.